Minks are raised on ranches and when eco-freaks let them loose, they attack and eat each other. Just like Dems do!

This is about the first time I've ***ever*** admired Hillary for something--she overcame her reflexive lying and admitted she has a fur. It's a step in the right direction! Maybe soon she'll quit pretending she voted against the war, and then who knows what will happen?

Good for her. She needs something the rest of us can stand to look at, to cover that nasty ol' pantsuit of hers.

6
posted on 01/18/2004 10:26:04 PM PST
by Triple Word Score
(2004: Even M&Ms are now BLACK AND WHITE.)

Didn't Hillary take around 6 minks from the White House in 2001? I do know for certain that the hideous coat that she wore to President Bush's Inauguration was mink lined, therefore, her aid was incorrect in saying that she only owned one mink coat that was 25 years old.

Today I saw a lady in a floor length mink coat shopping at Home Depot. Friday night I saw another lady in a floor length mink coat in the food court at Tyson's Corner. Neither looked appropriately dressed for the situation.

"Mrs. Clinton has never been in the showroom," she insisted. "I have never billed her. We sold a coat to her assistant, and what she did with it I don't know."

Ok, so Hillary's got a $5,000.00 coat, and she didn't pay for it. That would make it a gift.

I believe the limit on gifts to congresscritters is $500.00. Hillary accepted, and is apparently using, an item worth 10 times that amount.

I would be great fun if Page Six called the Ethics Committee to ask the exact wording of the gift ban act. If they really wanted to get the right story, they'd find out who paid for the coat, and whose closet its hanging in.

If this was a sheared mink coat, made of matched (not dyed) pelts from males (longer richer fur) and if it was custom fitted, somebody threw down a lot more than $5,000 to put that on Hillary. My guess would be more like $10K to $15K anyway.

Regards,

34
posted on 01/19/2004 4:40:31 AM PST
by Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)

THE GIFTS RULE
A limit on the amount and/or source of acceptable gifts for Senators and their staffs has been
in effect since 1977, when the Special Committee on Official Conduct, 95th Congress, proposed
the first Code of Official Conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the United States Senate.
The report issued by that committee provides a useful source of legislative history on the
original intent of the Gifts Rule, which has been amended on several occasions since 1977. 41 The
original Rule limited gifts from those with a direct interest in legislation to $100. Later, a $300
limit on gifts from all other sources was added. Thereafter, a uniform $250 annual limit was
placed on all sources of gifts.
Most recently, the Senate Gifts Rule was revised by Senate Resolution 158, 104th Congress,
effective January 1, 1996. A 1994 Report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (S.
Rpt. No. 103255, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.) offers insight into the purposes behind changes to the
Rule effectuated by Senate Resolution 158. The current Rule places significant new restrictions
on the ability of Senate Members, officers, and employees to accept gifts.
Senate Rule 35.1(a) sets forth the basic rule on accepting gifts. It states:
(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly accept a gift except
as provided in this rule.
(2) A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift (other than cash or cash equivalent)
which the Member, officer, or employee reasonably and in good faith believes to
have a value of less than $50, and a cumulative value from one source during a calendar
year of less than $100. No gift with a value below $10 shall count toward the $100 annual
limit. No formal recordkeeping is required by this paragraph, but a Member, officer,
or employee shall make a good faith effort to comply with this paragraph.
The figure of $50 (which is actually a dollar limit of $49.99) applies to each gift received,
unless the gift falls under an exception. The figure of $100 (which is actually a dollar limit of
$99.99) applies to the aggregate value of all non-exempt gifts received from a single source during
a calendar year. Thus, the value of all non-exempt gifts from a single source in a calendar year
must be tallied. Any gift worth less than $10 is excluded under Rule 35.1(a)(2) and does not count
towards the $99.99 total. Once the tally reaches $99.99, all further non-exempt gifts from that
source in that year must be declined.

This is the story, who paid for the coat? That is where this should lead. I am truly curious now.

As to miink, I love mink. It is light weight, warm, durable, lasts years. When you trade in a mink it cost about 2 grand to get upgraded. You can have one made over into something more stylish for about 1500. And mink lined coats are great,,you avoid the nasty catsup some throw at you. It is my impression that after a few years of self conscious hiding the miink, they are back in force in spite of PETA. And given the cold on the east coast, anyone who has one is wearing it. I love mink!! I love sable better but can't afford it.

It just goes to show the double standard they employ even within their own ranks. They have a standard for Torricelli, but only when it looked like he was finally going to get nailed for it, and they have a different standard for Herr Hillary.

This my dear Freepers, is the best example of Hilary Clinton's ethics and morals that we could possibly have access to (although there are many that are more evil and devious than this one).

The moral to the story is that Hilary Clinton is a very selfish greedy woman, that is willing to do anything (including arranging suicides), to ensure that she gains power and wealth.

Being a hardline socialist-communist she feels that the "masses" are stupid common folk, and she is better than we are. She feels that all laws (including murder) are for everyone but the elitists. She is Queen elitist. The longer she doesn't have to be among us common folk, the more stupid mistakes she will make.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.